Life is Good
nevver:

George Bernard Shaw

For 13 years Sofia Gatica has organized opposition to the aerial spraying of agrochemicals that threaten human health and the environment in Argentina — and for almost as long, she and her children have faced physical threats from anonymous agents.

Gatica, who lives in a working-class neighborhood of 6,000 in central Argentina surrounded by soy fields, began organizing against Monsanto after she noticed a disturbingly high rate of cancer and birth defects in her community. Her own 3-day-old daughter died of kidney failure in 1999, and a neighbor had a baby die of the same uncommon birth defect

I hate Monsanto #FuckMonsanto

nevver:

Fine art
The Extinction of the Dodo
nevver:

The Karma Sutra of Sleeping for Couples
nevver:

“Nothing that has meaning is easy,”Easy” doesn’t enter into grown-up life.” ― Michael Caine

nevver:

“Nothing that has meaning is easy,”Easy” doesn’t enter into grown-up life.” ― Michael Caine

nbcnightlynews:

One World Trade Center just became the tallest building in NYC.

fuckyeahmolecularbiology:

Life is blind.
How do we define life? If you asked this question to a biologist, he or she would point you towards the seven commandments of life science (‘thou shalt metabolise’; ‘thou shalt adapt’; ‘thou shalt reproduce’ etc.) Life, they would say, is a label we give to anything displaying these seven features. This stone tablet has been able to bestow the status of ‘living’ unto all the fish and trees and mushrooms and amoebae that biologists have so far wanted to study. However is this statutory definition enough? I don’t think it is. It seeks to sort any given collection of molecules into one of two camps: ‘living’ or ‘not living’. It’s a tautological distinction that takes no prisoners. Importantly, rather than attempting to form a truly encompassing definition, all it does is list seven characteristics that are common to everything that had already been colloquially defined as life! It is no more of a definition than an affirmation. It in no way reflects the complex nature of, well… Nature.An individual mammal and the cells inside it are both considered to be living in their own right. Contrast this with a swarm of bees which isn’t generally thought of as an organism in of itself, but rather a collection of organisms. Our intuition seems to only accept something as living if it’s encapsulated in its entirety by skin, scales or a membrane. Yet in many ways a swarm or hive will act as a single coherent organism when reacting to a stimulus. A hive is even organised into subsystems (workers, soldiers, a queen etc.) which all interact with each other in a way that’s fundamentally similar to the way cells interact in a mammal.

We live in hives too, but we call them cities.Cities are often described through metaphors such as ‘thriving’ or ‘alive’, but are these more than metaphors? A city metabolises coal to power and heat itself, it has a body clock and transport network, it’s organised into cells (us) which function to keep it homeostatic, it can grow and die, it adapts to environmental changes over time… Despite all this it we as humans remain very objectionable to the idea that a city might be an actual living organism. But then again, if a red blood cell could philosophise would it too reject the notion that its host was in some sense just as much an individual as it was? Would it not ascribe the seemingly intelligent behaviour of the human it lives in to the computational work performed by individual neurons that it supplies oxygen to rather than the human itself? The human would certainly ascribe intelligence to itself! Or its brain, where it considers the ‘seat of its consciousness’ to be.In what ways, then, is a computer different to a brain? While I’m not going to get into a discussion of consciousness, I will raise the question: do computers think? Well, they don’t think like a human, but that’s not to say they don’t in some sense think. In any case, the answer certainly isn’t either a yes or a no, but complex and multi-faceted one.And I think this is true not just of thought but of life itself. The questions raised here are ones that cannot be addressed (or even asked!) by the limiting definiton that biology has given us. In this sense it is blind to many possibilities of life that we could learn from. Life cannot be defined in such a way that makes it a binary digit (either living or not living). Nor should it be a scale of 1-10. If anything, it’s a many-dimensional vector. The seven pillars should not serve as committee in charge of (lifelong?) membership to the Living Club. Rather, they should be thought of as a set of features that emerge out of the complex behaviours characteristic to life and governed by evolution. Life, if anything is a single individual composed of sub-individuals, sub-systems, subsub-individuals, self-similar on many scales, all interacting, all ecompassing. It is a networked fractal array of cogs and axels but most of all: hugely, vastly, complex.

fuckyeahmolecularbiology:

Life is blind.

How do we define life? If you asked this question to a biologist, he or she would point you towards the seven commandments of life science (‘thou shalt metabolise’; ‘thou shalt adapt’; ‘thou shalt reproduceetc.) Life, they would say, is a label we give to anything displaying these seven features. This stone tablet has been able to bestow the status of ‘living’ unto all the fish and trees and mushrooms and amoebae that biologists have so far wanted to study. However is this statutory definition enough?

I don’t think it is. It seeks to sort any given collection of molecules into one of two camps: ‘living’ or ‘not living’. It’s a tautological distinction that takes no prisoners. Importantly, rather than attempting to form a truly encompassing definition, all it does is list seven characteristics that are common to everything that had already been colloquially defined as life! It is no more of a definition than an affirmation. It in no way reflects the complex nature of, well… Nature.

An individual mammal and the cells inside it are both considered to be living in their own right. Contrast this with a swarm of bees which isn’t generally thought of as an organism in of itself, but rather a collection of organisms. Our intuition seems to only accept something as living if it’s encapsulated in its entirety by skin, scales or a membrane. Yet in many ways a swarm or hive will act as a single coherent organism when reacting to a stimulus. A hive is even organised into subsystems (workers, soldiers, a queen etc.) which all interact with each other in a way that’s fundamentally similar to the way cells interact in a mammal.

We live in hives too, but we call them cities.

Cities are often described through metaphors such as ‘thriving’ or ‘alive’, but are these more than metaphors? A city metabolises coal to power and heat itself, it has a body clock and transport network, it’s organised into cells (us) which function to keep it homeostatic, it can grow and die, it adapts to environmental changes over time…

Despite all this it we as humans remain very objectionable to the idea that a city might be an actual living organism. But then again, if a red blood cell could philosophise would it too reject the notion that its host was in some sense just as much an individual as it was? Would it not ascribe the seemingly intelligent behaviour of the human it lives in to the computational work performed by individual neurons that it supplies oxygen to rather than the human itself? The human would certainly ascribe intelligence to itself! Or its brain, where it considers the ‘seat of its consciousness’ to be.

In what ways, then, is a computer different to a brain? While I’m not going to get into a discussion of consciousness, I will raise the question: do computers think? Well, they don’t think like a human, but that’s not to say they don’t in some sense think. In any case, the answer certainly isn’t either a yes or a no, but complex and multi-faceted one.

And I think this is true not just of thought but of life itself. The questions raised here are ones that cannot be addressed (or even asked!) by the limiting definiton that biology has given us. In this sense it is blind to many possibilities of life that we could learn from. Life cannot be defined in such a way that makes it a binary digit (either living or not living). Nor should it be a scale of 1-10. If anything, it’s a many-dimensional vector. The seven pillars should not serve as committee in charge of (lifelong?) membership to the Living Club. Rather, they should be thought of as a set of features that emerge out of the complex behaviours characteristic to life and governed by evolution. Life, if anything is a single individual composed of sub-individuals, sub-systems, subsub-individuals, self-similar on many scales, all interacting, all ecompassing. It is a networked fractal array of cogs and axels but most of all: hugely, vastly, complex.

jtotheizzoe:

4,000,000 Digits of Pi, Visualized
In 2011, pi was computed out to 10,000,000,000,000 decimal places. Here are 4,000,000 of them, translated into colored pixels corresponding to digits 0-9 (this is only part of it, explore the full image here).
It only takes 39 digits of pi to draw a circle the size of the universe down to the accuracy of a hydrogen atom, so we’ve got about 9,999,999,999,961 extra to figure out what to do with. This visualization only covers 4e-5% of all known digits of pi.
At a normal reading pace, it would take you 158,000 years to recite all known digits of pi. Better start practicing!

jtotheizzoe:

4,000,000 Digits of Pi, Visualized

In 2011, pi was computed out to 10,000,000,000,000 decimal places. Here are 4,000,000 of them, translated into colored pixels corresponding to digits 0-9 (this is only part of it, explore the full image here).

It only takes 39 digits of pi to draw a circle the size of the universe down to the accuracy of a hydrogen atom, so we’ve got about 9,999,999,999,961 extra to figure out what to do with. This visualization only covers 4e-5% of all known digits of pi.

At a normal reading pace, it would take you 158,000 years to recite all known digits of pi. Better start practicing!

spytap:

Welcome to LA.

spytap:

Welcome to LA.